' A petition for the cancellation of bail of Allah Ditta has been moved on the ground that it was not a case of pre-arrest bail. According to the Allah Ditta, the respondent used to make amorous advances towards Mst. Irshad Mai, the complainant. On 7-8-1988 at about 6-00 p.m. When she was cutting grass in the sugarcane field, Allah Ditta came there and intimidated that she would be done to death in case she raised an alarm. He put off her Shalwar and committed rape with her. On her alarm Ghulam Arbi and Abdul Khaliq came there and the respondent succeeded in running away. It has been added that the husband and the father-in-law of Mst. Irshad Mai were out of the village so she lodged the report on 8-8-1988 at 1-00 p.m.
2. Obviously, it was not a case of pre-arrest bail but the learned Addition Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, was influenced by the fact that the secretion of semen could not be detected as the swabs were not stained with semen. The lad doctor, on the basis of the report of the Chemical Examiner, opined that there was no fresh intercourse. The complainant is married lady. Furthermore, a hur case was registered when Allah Ditta was injured by the relatives of Mst. Irshad Mai. This fact was not stated in the F.I.R. That Allah Ditta had been injured on account of his nefarious act of rape. In the circumstances, it is not a fit case for the cancellation of bail. The petition stands rejected. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.